KULAVENDRA KAUR,JASPUR V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1) KASHIPUR, KASHIPUR

ITA 81/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kulavendra Kaur, the appellant, who contested the disallowance of her claimed construction costs amounting to Rs. 25,00,000 by the Income Tax Officer, which was upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The dispute arose from the sale of her immovable property, where she declared short-term capital gains. The primary legal contention was whether the costs incurred for construction on a vacant plot could be fully claimed against the sale proceeds. The Tribunal's decision to partially allow the claim was based on the difficulty of verifying expenses in the unorganized sector, acknowledging the partial substantiation of the claimed costs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829174 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Dehradun
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARHIT GOEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 81/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Kulavendra Kaur M/s Gurukirpa Boutique, Village- Hamirowal, Jaspur, Kashipur, Uttarakhand-244712 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Kashipur, Uttarakhand-244713 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DUGPK4830R Assessee by : Sh. Harhit Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/10734919886(1) dated 20.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises her sole substantive grievance directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing her cost of construction of the house/capital asset Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 81/DDN/2025 Kulavendra Kaur 2 amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- in assessment order dated 17.12.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. We make it clear that there is no dispute between the parties that the assessee had sold her immovable property/house for sale consideration of Rs.32,72,000/- and declared short term capital gains arising therefrom as assessable under the provisions of the Act. Coming to the foregoing sole substantive issue between the parties, the Revenue vehemently argues that she had failed to prove the same in both the lower proceedings. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. Learned counsel more particularly submits that the assessee had purchased only a vacant plot followed by her construction cost incurred thereupon which finally culminated in the short term capital gains declared at her behest. 6. We find no reason to accept either party’s arguments in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has successfully discharged her onus to plead and prove the impugned cost of construction of Rs.25,00,000/- nor her the same could be altogether denied as each and every evidence in Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 81/DDN/2025 Kulavendra Kaur 3 such unorganized sector is very difficult to be verified. We thus deem it appropriate in these peculiar backdrop that a lump sum disallowance of Rs.12,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee’s cost of construction claim of Rs.25,00,000/- is hereby allowed to the extent of Rs.13,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 12/01/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "